Which presiential candidate would be best for the future of math and science?

Parents Forum Parent Cafe
21

<p>


</p>

<p>I don't. Either God does not influence reality, in which it is a metaphysical with little relevance and little proof either way, as I said, or God does influence reality. If God does influence reality in more of a way than being behind the way the universe functions (which is just metaphysical all over again, since whether it's God or nature that makes the universe function as it does is irrelevant to the universe so long as neither have different ways of functioning), then there should be strong evidence of that fact.</p>

<p>Since to say that the latter is true requires evidence, and none has been provided. To speculate over truth is irrelevant and without reason.</p>

22

<p>1of42: Well I really wasn't thinking of you personally when I made that statement, so I'll leave it up to you as to whether you fit that category or not! (btw please tell me again how to do the smiley since your explanation got deleted with that last thread.)</p>

<p>
[quote]
faith and science don't need to mix.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Faith and science don't NEED to mix, but, as science begins to explain more and more of what used to be considered faith, they begin to mix. </p>

<p>To a primitive person who's never seen a tv, it would be considered magical. There've been lots of books and movies about primitive people thinking a modern person was some sort of god. It was only because they didn't understand the technology.</p>

<p>To someone who accepts the possibility that ours is not the only planet among all those billions capable of supporting intelligent life, and that our scientific knowledge is not necessarily the most advanced in the universe, the theory that intelligent beings came to our planet at some point in our distant past and demonstrated some of their technology, the primitives would naturally think those beings were some sort of gods. </p>

<p>This would explain the 'God' of the old testament as well as the mysteries of who built the pyramids and other unexplainables, btw.</p>

<p>1of42, my definition of metaphysics is a bit more specific than yours, at least in terms of its common usage among those who consider themselves 'metaphysicians' (much like a vegetarian laying claim to the term and stating that someone who avoids red meat has no such claim) which is why I asked for your definition. Mine would be anything of an occult (translate: 'hidden,' NOT evil) nature which seeks to explain natural laws that are not yet readily accepted by mainstream science. The assumption is that mainstream science just has not yet caught up with what psychics, mystics, etc. know to be true from direct experience. </p>

<p>Likewise, those who have experienced some sort of spiritual uplifting, or presence, if you will, would say that science simply has not yet caught up with God, or, to be more accurate, with whatever it is they are experiencing that they are attributing to God. Their experiences are quite real. Science may attempt to explain it with chemical reactions, but that still does not answer the question of what CAUSED those chemical reactions.</p>

<p>As with the Big Bang theory, which, imo, requires much more faith than the theory that there is a Cosmic Intelligence of some sort who set it all in motion. I find it much more logical to believe that intelligence designed the universe and then inhabited the physical reality, than the idea that all of the beauty and intelligence just happened by chance.</p>

<p>Here is an interesting article about this:</p>

<p>[url=<a href="http://www.jimhull.com/Faith.html%5DFaith?%5B/url"&gt;http://www.jimhull.com/Faith.html]Faith?[/url&lt;/a&gt;]&lt;/p>

<p>(excerpt)</p>

<p>
[quote]
In one of her essays in PARADE magazine, columnist Marilyn Vos Savant - Guinness record holder as the person with the highest recorded IQ - laid down an interesting challenge: she dared us to tell the difference between "faith" in religion and "faith" in science:</p>

<p>"But do you believe [in the Big Bang theory]? If so, how do you support your belief that the entire cosmos was once smaller than a polka dot? (With a strong line of reasoning? Some solid evidence? Anything at all?) If you cannot, welcome to the world of faith: you're accepting what you've been told by those you respect. And that's what creationists do. They just respect different folks."

[/quote]
</p>

23

<p>
[quote]
then there should be strong evidence of that fact.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>How can you possibly expect to find evidence of something that mere humans cannot possibly begin to understand? An intelligence capable of creating the universe (as well as any number of possible alternate universes, according to the latest research), could not possibly be contained in the minds of humans as we exist now.</p>

<p>If you're looking for an old man with a beard who lives in the sky, then yeah. The biblical 'God' then yeah. But how do you know those religious depictions are anywhere near accurate? All religious books were written by humans, remember. (No offense to anyone, but it is a matter of FAITH that God inspired those people and the books were the word of God. Not everyone shares that faith. To many of us, they are just books.)</p>

<p>That's why there are so many different religions. God is too big to fit into one religion. Or into science, for that matter.</p>

24

<p>Prove that assertion. If you can't, it's essentially meaningless.</p>

25

<p>What assertion?</p>

26

<p>That God is a kind of being beyond our comprehension.</p>

27

<p>Oh, that's easy. Are we capable of creating life? of creating entire planets, galaxies, universes? </p>

<p>No? Then we cannot comprehend a Being capable of those things, any more than a child could comprehend a nuclear physicist.</p>

28

<br>


<br>

<p>No one here has said that, adamantly or otherwise. In fact the existence of God exactly the sort of question that science is quite cheerfully incapable of addressing. The existence of God is an issue that stands outside of the realm of science.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>While scientists, being human, are frequently narrow-minded and dogmatic, Science itself, as a method or process, is not. And scientists will freely and happily admit that they do not know Absolute Truth. Only some religions claim that. What scientists strive for are better and better <em>approximations</em> of the truth. As more and more becomes known, better and better models and explanations are developed. The fact that we cannot ever get to some sort of Ultimate Truth through science in no way detracts from its power and usefulness.</p>

29

<p>True, but those purporting to follow science too often scoff at anything not yet proven by science. That is arrogant.</p>

30

<p>lealdragon, that is circular reasoning. Your argument that "proves" the assertion that we cannot comprehend God assumes that God exists and assigns to It certain actions that you have also failed to prove It carried out.</p>

31

<p>It would be circular logic if I was trying to prove that such a being exists. But I'm not. I am NOT attempting to prove that God exists. I am attempting to prove that, IF such a being exists, we cannot comprehend it, since there is still so much we don't understand about the universe.</p>

<p>There has to be an assumption. The assumption is the definition of God, Creator of the Universe. I assert that any being (if any exists) capable of creating the universe cannot be understood by humans in our present state of evolution. Only when we are able to do same can we comprehend anything or anyone capable of such.</p>

32

<p>Well I say there is multiple Gods. Zeus and Helen and the flying spaghetti monster. That trumps your 1 monotheistic God. My belief is as valid as yours :)</p>

33

<p>All hail the Trinityof Zeus , helen, and the flying spaghetti monster.</p>

<p>P.S. I will now go sacrifice a bull to get an A on my Chemistry Final. You can't prove my sacrificing of a bull has more or less power than you go going to church/temple every week.</p>

34

<p>Any Presidential candidate that supports and protects the rights of homeschoolers will be good for science and math. (just ask Edison....;))</p>

35

<p>gottaloveucla, have you forgotten Bacchus? Most important one of them all ;)</p>

<p>Oh, and please spare the poor bull - go hit your quantum chemistry books.</p>

36

<p>"But there is no rational reason why they NEED to be separate either" [from post# 20]
Huh?? Ever heard of the doctrine of seperation of church and state, as written in the U.S. Constitution??
No one, as president, has the right to impose their own personal religious beliefs on the citizens of the United States. They take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States when they take office, and that Constitution spells out the seperation of religion from matters of state. That may not be the case in other countries, but it is in the US. Hopefully the next President will actually understand that.</p>

37

<p>


</p>

<p>That would be true if the argument were in a vacuum. But it's not. We were discussing God, and I asked you to provide suitable evidence. You said you couldn't, because we as humans cannot comprehend such a being. Ergo, your ensuing justification of why that is true, using God's nature as an assumption, is circular logic.</p>

<p>If your discussion of whether or not we could comprehend God is truly independent of whether or not God exists, we're back to square one: why is there no evidence? If it's not, then you can't assume anything about God in your argument. See how that works?</p>

38

<p>1/42, any candidate who doesn't believe in evolution is a bad bet to improve scientific literacy in this country. Huckabee is just the most brazen of the would-be ayahtollahs. I liked Tim Rutten's assessement of Romney: he doesn't object to a religious qualification for office, he just wants it broad enough to include Mormons.</p>

<p>Of the Republicans, McCain and Giuliani are probably rational on the score of promoting math & science. Giuliani actually probably gets off on the idea of inventing new technologies to assist authoritarian thuggery.</p>

39

<p>This thread seems to have devolved into a debate on religion. Maybe it would be better to stick to the original question: which candidate would be best for the future of math and science? Unfortunately, this too is probably just a trick question. It is unlikely to make much difference. Our society has not had much interest in supporting science education since the era of Sputnik in the late 50's. Nor does our society make it easy or rewarding for those who are interested in the basic sciences and math. It takes many years of training and experience to develop the skills and knowledge to work in many areas of research. Those skills are generally poorly rewarded. Sometimes I believe we think advances in science are easy. After all didn't some high school kids win awards for making major advances in fighting tuberculosis? Yeah, right.</p>

40

<p>
[quote]
"But do you believe [in the Big Bang theory]? If so, how do you support your belief that the entire cosmos was once smaller than a polka dot? (With a strong line of reasoning? Some solid evidence? Anything at all?)"

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hubble's Law, Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, abundances of light elements being consistent with predictions made by the Big Bang nucleosynthesis model, galaxy and quasar distributions agreeing with predictions made by Big Bang simulations, observations of Type Ia supernovae, radiometric dating of globular clusters and Population II stars being consistent with predictions of the Big Bang model...</p>

<p>There are certainly still issues that need to be resolved, but acting like there is no evidence for the Big Bang, that it is a matter of faith, is disingenuous.</p>

<p>That said, she does have a point. In addition to all the people who won't accept scientific evidence because it contradicts their faith, there are a lot of people out there who take statements that are claimed to be science on faith, without actually having researched what was said and what the evidence for it is. That is very unfortunate, and I think that part of improving scientific literacy in this country is getting people to understand and engage with science, not just to know what scientists are saying.</p>